/lit/ - Literature

Also, why is he associated so heavily with the right wing when every leftist professor loves him?

>06-24-82 We reflect how few people really read Shakespeare, and in this connection think of Nietzsche, whose strange character we sum up by saying that he possessed no real intelligence, but could be magnetized.

>>20927249
I don't think he's dumb, just shortsighted and spiteful

>>20927242
>Why was he wrong about literally everything?
He wasn't. Will to Power as the principle of all motivation is as simple as Peterson's theory in Maps of Meaning that states all positive emotion is experienced as the individual facilitates a goal. All values are relational because everything that is "relevant" has to be connected to something else it affects, which means it is as relevant as it is powerful. Master and Slave morality are as self-evident as the fact that some people pursue goals and some people run from obstacles.
>>20927242
>Also, why is he associated so heavily with the right wing when every leftist professor loves him?
Jordan Peterson is influenced by Nietzsche but openly rejects the Will to Power and the idea that all values are relational. The right basically sees him as a self-improvement guide but they ignore his emphasis on following passion and identifying higher nobility with the type who will harm themselves in devotion to what they love. They unironically think master morality means "clean your room, get a job, talk to women".

>>20927282
Wagner had only read Human, All Too Human from Nietzsche's mature period. Even Nietzsche was ashamed of that book. It's not hard to see why Nietzsche lacked any real intelligence because of how he declined up to that point.

>>20927554
>It's not hard to see why Nietzsche lacked any real intelligence because of how he declined up to that point.
Quote something he said that lacks any real intelligence

>>20927558
>to the memory of Voltaire on the celebration of the anniversary of his death, May 30, 1778

>>20927587
epic and spicy

he was right about kant and hegel being wrong
>>20927587
kek

>>20927236
Name one thing he was wrong about. But you haven't read him.

>>20927523
Stopped reading when you mentioned Peeterson

Nietzsche was right though

>>20927236
Neetchan was based because he didnt have to work thats all

>>20927664
I mentioned Peterson because he didn't teach Nietzsche correctly (or technically he cited Nietzsche as a primary influence to his own work and misrepresented him so badly it was as if he never expected his audience to actually read any of him)

>>20927633
The unassuagable influence of the unconscious.
Nietsche is unconvincing for the same reasons as Peterson: they're both neurotics, and are plainly doing something wrong.

>>20927738
>>20927723
Peterson is one tenth the man Nietzsche was.

>>20927738
>>20927768
Carl Jung said this about Will to Power
>Where love rules, there is no will to power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.
I fully believe Jung was wrong here. When you have a goal (love) you want to facilitate it (meaning you are an agent of its power). If you want to love someone the fact of you wanting to affect them is will to power (power is that which connects things, affect itself). Love is the goal, power is the means.

>>20927242
Because people don’t read him.

>>20927805
Yeah, Jung is wrong there. He, like most, grappled with the Anglo literal translation of the concept, "will to power" as in "desire for [political, social, or economic] power," leading him to misunderstand what Nietzsche was referring to.

Love is fully in the realm of will to power, both the masculine and feminine varieties of it. There are masculine and feminine varieties of power. I'm surprised Jung didn't pick up on this.

>>20928003
>I'm surprised Jung didn't pick up on this.
He must have been reading a bad translation.

>>20927805
You are playing mental gymnastics. Jung was right. Nietzsche lacked real world experience to have any sort of meaningful validation on how to live life, let alone define it's purpose. He was completely and utterly ignorant of eastern philosophy. If he had more experience from the world as a whole, and not just German Greek history and philosophy, he would understand that. There is a reason why his master, Schopenhauer largely stayed out of morality and ethics.

>>20928014
>>20928003

Jung is Swiss and most likely read the original. More mental coping. lol feminine and masculine forms of will to power.

>>20928038
i was kidding

>>20927236
>Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics" is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.

>>20927805
>>20928003
Jung, at least in this context, isn't using 'love' in a general sense but the Wagnerian. While yes the will to power does not itself preclude love, it does a presupposed idolisation of or imperative towards it, hence there is an antithesis between the two. Full quote:

>It is, I think, characteristic of our psychology that we find on the threshold of the new age two figures who were destined to exert an immense influence on the hearts and minds of the younger generation: Wagner, the prophet of love, whose music runs the whole gamut of feeling from Tristan down to incestuous passion, then up again from Tristan to the sublime spirituality of Parsifal; and Nietzsche, the prophet of power and of the triumphant will for individuality. Wagner, in his last and loftiest utterance, harked back to the Grail legend, as Goethe did to Dante, but Nietzsche seized on the idea of a master caste and a master morality, an idea embodied in many a fairhaired hero and knight of the Middle Ages. Wagner broke the bonds that fettered love, Nietzsche shattered the “tables of values” that cramp individuality. Both strove after similar goals while at the same time creating irremediable discord; for where love is, power cannot prevail, and where power prevails, love cannot reign.

His main point is the interconnectedness of their views anyway.

>>20928014
Jung didn't read translations of German lol.

>>20928038
>lol feminine and masculine forms of will to power.
Not what was written. Will to power is always the same, it's love and power that have masculine and feminine forms.

>>20928061
>for where love is, power cannot prevail, and where power prevails, love cannot reign.
I have no idea what definition of love and power he is referring to here, but when anyone loves, they are still "discharging their strength," "growing" as Nietzsche described the will to power in effect.

>>20928022
>You are playing mental gymnastics.
The idea that power is anything but that which facilitates is a slave moralist projection.

>>20927805
Jung also said this:-
>Nietsche lived beyond instinct, in the lofty heights of heroic "sublimity" - heights that he could maintain only by the help of a most meticulous diet, a carefully selected climate, and many aids to sleep ... The "higher" man would fain be able to sleep without chloral, be able to live in Nuremberg and Basel despite "fogs and shadows." He would desire wife and offspring, standing and reputation among his own group, innumerable commonplace realities and not least, those of the philistine. This side of instinct Nietsche did not see - the animal urge to Life.
Like I said, Nietsche was a nervous wreck - because he was constantly at war with the "base" instincts that any adequate human being must come to terms with.

Letter to Franz Overbeck 5/24/78:
>I gather from your brief allusions that our old friend Nietzsche has been holding himself aloof from you as well. There is no doubt that very striking changes have taken place in him; but anyone who observed him and his psychic spasms years ago could almost be justified in saying that a long-dreaded and not entirely unpredictable catastrophe had now overtaken him. I have retained sufficient friendship for him not to read his book – which I glanced through as I was cutting the pages – and can only wish and hope that he will thank me for it some day.

Letter to Franz Overbeck 10/19/79:
>How could I ever forget this friend of mine who was driven from me so forcefully? Although I constantly had the feeling that, at the time of his association with me, Nietzsche’s life was ruled by a mental spasm, and although it was bound to strike me as odd that this spasm could have produced so spiritually radiant and heart-warming a fire as was manifest in him to the astonishment of all, and although, finally, the ultimate decision which he reached in the inner development of his life filled me with the utmost horror when I saw how intolerable a pressure that spasm was finally causing him – I must no doubt also admit that in the case of so powerful a psychic process it is simply not possible to argue along moral lines and that one’s only response can be a shocked silence.

>>20928141
>Like I said, Nietsche was a nervous wreck - because he was constantly at war with the "base" instincts that any adequate human being must come to terms with.
That's because his philosophy is an immense undertaking if taken seriously, not because it is wrong.

>>20928151
>>20928141
That's literally the whole point of the tightrope walker.

>>20927236
Because he was actually doing psychology, just under the guise of philosophy so that he wouldnt have to actually base his claims in any empirical reality. He even admits this. Nietzsche is wrong for the same reason Freud was wrong, he conducted pseudoscience.

>>20928151
>not because it is wrong
If the result is neurosis, something in your head clearly thinks it's wrong.

>>20928151
I wouldn't say his philosophy was the cause. Giving birth to it was the cause. Giving birth is typically a spastic mess of a scene.

>>20928038
>feminine and masculine forms of will to power.
The feminine will to power does not exist. They have a small will, what drives them cannot be described as will.

>>20928185
Women satiate their will to power when they get dominated by a man. It doesn't make sense to us, but it makes sense to them.

>>20928185
Women mirror the will of a man, first their father's then their husband's, they have no will of their own.

>>20928185
I can see you've never had a stubborn bitch of a girlfriend. Or any girlfriend at all.

>>20928189
That is not will.

Incredible now Nietzsche makes Platoids and Christians (same thing) seethe.

>>20928151
no need to throw the baby out with the bath water, but to accept his philosophy wholesale is motivationally suspect. Where I think Nietzsche was best, was his etymological arguments for morality, and to a lesser extent, his take on the effects of Greek tragedy and western values. The whole will to power crap is glorified self-help advice. The Übermensch concept was never fleshed out, and he certainly was no Übermensch himself.

>>20928203
Yes, it is. Will is neither masculine nor feminine, but there are masculine and feminine forms of it. Every organism is in a sense a form of will while not being will itself.

>>20928199
If it's an opinion that's her father you're dealing with, or her mother's father, not her. For the rest it's like Schopenhauer said, women have nature on their side, but that is not will. Their defences are deception and mirroring.

>>20928211
Not women, they can't afford a will.

>>20928227
They lack masculine will, but they have feminine will. If they didn't, they wouldn't even move.

>>20928247
You are conflating Nietzsche with Schopenhauer. Will to power is not the Will. Of course women have the will because we are all representations of will. Men are just higher order agents of the will.

>>20928247
>>20928297
Correct, they have a small will. They however mirror your own will to defend themselves, so it can appear as though they have a large will, but it's just you going to war against yourself.

>>20928297
>You are conflating Nietzsche with Schopenhauer.
I'm not, you are.

>Will to power is not the Will.
In my posts it is. Women have will to power all the same, and they don't have "less" will to power than men, theirs is just expressed differently, because they are inversions of men.

>>20928324
No, women have no individual agency, they care about the whole rather than the individual. Schopenhauer explains it. Their duty is to society first.

>>20928324
you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You fell in Nietzsche's linguistic trap, he has simply borrowed Schopenhauers terminology and molested it for his moral argument, which is what the will to power relates to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the metaphysical will and it's representations.

>>20928347
Yes, Nietzsche will is the actual will, basically your manhood. Schopenhauer will is that too but he was too much of coward to admit it, so pretends it doesn't belong to the individual, very feminine of him. But that allowed him to understand women.

>>20928363
typical Nietzschien starbucks drinking faggot. Lose argument and spurge on about power and take pot shots at Chad on your way out of the thread and on your way to watch some more philosophytube.

>>20928337
>they care about the whole rather than the individual.
That's their individual agency. Like I said, it doesn't make sense to us, but it makes sense to them. Do you think non-human animals perfectly share the same form of will as humans? If not, then why do you think men and women must perfectly share the same form, with women just having "less" of it?

>>20928347
>It has absolutely nothing to do with the metaphysical will and it's representations.
I'm not saying it does.

>>20928378
>>20928411
Women are dangerous not because they have will, but because they absorb it. It's never their own will, they need men, that's why you don't have female hermits.

>>20927523
>>20927664
>>20927723
>>20927768
>>20927805
yall retarded af, philosophy cannot explain these things. the only way to have an "accurate" explanation of power is comparing to animals or our past selves